alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1476** 

In re: METAPHYZIC EL

- ECTROMAGNETIC SUPREME

- EL, f/k/a Antonio Edward McLean, a/k/a Metaphyzic Electromagnetic Supreme , Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. (7:16

- cv - 00060

- JLK

- RSB )

Submitted : June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN , KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Metaphyzic El

- ectromagneti c Supreme

- El , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Metaphyzic El

- ectromagnetic Supreme

- El petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the district court to consider his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition under § 2241 and not as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition . We conclude that Supreme

- El is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U .S
. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass ’ n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)
. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by Supreme

- El is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mat erials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 60623 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
MARTIN DEL CASTILLO

- BARRON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Martin Del Castillo

- Barron was convicted of i llegal reentry of a previ ously deported aggravated felon in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) and (b)(2)

. He was found in the United States during the course of a traffic stop when a police officer learned that occupants of the stopped vehicle, including Del Castillo

- Barron, were not United States citizens and possessed no document s authorizing their presence in the country. On appeal, Del Castillo

- Barron argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained following the traffic stop. In support of his argument, Del Castillo

- Barron contends that the officer conducting the stop exceeded his j urisdiction under Mississippi state law United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 5, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-60623 Document: 00513452566 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2016No. 15

- 60623

2 because the stop occurred at a location where the of ficer lacked authority to
act. T he relevant ques tion is whether the o fficer , in conducting the traffic stop , violated the Fourth Amendment. See U nited States v. Walker , 960 F.2d 409, 415 (5th Cir. 1992). Issues regarding local law

- enforcement jurisdiction do not govern in a federal criminal action. Id

. ; United States v. Hernandez

Acuna , 202 F. App’x 736, 744 (5th Cir. 2006). Del Castillo

- Barron does not challenge the district court’s finding that the traffic stop conformed with the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

. The district court, therefore, properly denied the motion to suppress. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-60623 Document: 00513452566 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2016
[4910-13-P)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AnON

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0275; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-231~AD; Amendment (0.- 7- I [) 1&344 OUTING SYMOOI.

39-**; AD **1~O/O-I4--CI -(

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B.

747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400F, 747SR,

and 747SP Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Model

747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-40

747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD requires reworking or replacing

certain duct assemblies in the environmental control system (ECS). This AD results fro

reports of duct assemblies in the ECS with burned Boeing Material Specification

(BMS) 8-39 polyurethane foam insulation. This,proposed AD also results from a report

~ITIAl.sISI(;'? ee, \ 1..-_

t C1/L>Ve.,)

D

ROUTING. y "U~

from the airplane manufacturer that airplanes were assembled with duct assemblies in th' INITIALS'~'~

ECS wrapped with BMS 8-39 polyurethane foam insulation, a material of which the fir11r;>"H

retardant properties deteriorate with age. We are issuing this AD to prevent a potential " Sy"OO~

electrical arc from igniting the BM3 8-39 polyurethane foam insulation on the duct

assemblies of the ECS, which could propagate a small fire and lead to a larger fire that

might spread throughout the airplane through the ECS.

DATES: This AD is effective [INSERT DATE 35 DAYS AFTER DATE OF

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

iTlNGSy••ll()~
**DAAN-13-04**

**Master Solicitation with Additional Clauses**

(October 2016)

In addition to the clauses contained herein, the Purchase Order clauses are applicable as indicated in the DLA Master Solicitation for EProcurement Automated Simplified Acquisitions (Part 13), Revision *XX,  (Date),* which can be found on the web at http://www.dla.mil/HQ/Acquisition/Offers/eProcurement.aspx. 

(End of Notice)
**DAAN-48-03**

**Production without Value Engineering Change Proposals (VECP)**

(January 2017)

All units supplied under this contract/order shall be produced using the specification/drawing identified in the procurement item description without using any approved VECP method. Acceptance of any unit produced using the VECP identified in the item description is prohibited. 

(End of Notice)
S16Y1436.

#### IN THE MATTER OF TIMOTHY EUGENE MOSES.

(791 SE2d 2)

Decided September 12, 2016.

*Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittel-man, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition of Timothy Eugene Moses (State Bar No. 526535) for voluntary surrender of license, pursuant to Bar Rule 4-227 (b), filed prior to the issuance of a formal complaint seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline. In his petition, Moses, who has been a member of the Bar since 1994, admits that, from August 2009 through September 2011, he directly invoiced clients in excess of $77,000, in contravention of the unwritten policies of his then-firm, and accepted payments directly from clients that should have been submitted to the firm. Although Moses had repaid the mis-invoiced funds by October 2013 and had not had a prior disciplinary record, he acknowledged that his conduct violated Rule 8.4 (a) (4) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, see Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment. Moses further notes that, on April 20, 2016, he was disbarred by the Supreme Court of South Carolina for the misconduct at issue here. In its response, the State Bar recommends that this Court accept Moses’s petition for voluntary surrender of his license.

We have reviewed the record and agree to accept Moses’s petition for the voluntary surrender of his license, which is tantamount to disbarment. Accordingly, the name of Timothy Eugene Moses is hereby removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia. Moses is reminded of his duties under Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

*All the Justices concur.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED March 1, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51107 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus TIMOTHY WAYNE WETLESEN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:04-CR-110-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Timothy Wayne Wetlesen appeals his sentence imposed pursuant to a plea of guilty to attempt to manufacture methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues that pursuant to United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), his case should be remanded for resentencing because the district court erred in sentencing him pursuant to the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines.No. 04-51107 -2- By sentencing Wetlesen under a mandatory guidelines regime, the district court committed what this court refers to as Fanfan

error. See United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2005). The Government concedes that Wetlesen preserved his Fanfan argument by raising an objection in the district court pursuant to Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Given the district court’s statement that it would impose the same sentence in the event the Guidelines were declared unconstitutional, the Government has carried its burden of demonstrating harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. See e.g. , United States v. Saldana , 427 F.3d 298, 314 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied , 2006 WL 37834 (Jan. 9, 2006). AFFIRMED.
No. 10-6559.

#### Eugenia B. White, Petitioner v. Fairfax County, Virginia.

562 U.S. 1207, 131 S. Ct. 1064,

178 L. Ed. 2d 878,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1044.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1067, 131 S. Ct. 650, 178 L. Ed. 2d 488, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 9421.
# C_2015294EN.01001302.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče (Slovenia)) — Petar Kezić s.p. Trgovina Prizma v Republika Slovenija

(Case C-331/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value-added tax - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Articles 2(1) and 4(1) - Tax liability - Immovable property transactions - Sale of lands assigned to the private assets of a natural person exercising the profession of sole trader - Taxable person acting as such))

(2015/C 294/17)

Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Petar Kezić s.p. Trgovina Prizma

Appellant:

Respondent: Republika Slovenija

Respondent:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings — where a taxable person has acquired plots of land, some of which have been assigned to his private assets and others to his business and, where he has built, in his capacity as a taxable person, upon all of those plots of land, a shopping centre which was then sold together with the plots of land on which the building was erected — the sale of the plots of land which were assigned to that taxable person’s private assets must be subject to value added tax since that person, at the time of that transaction, acted as such.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

1

---
No. 10-832 (R46-010).

#### Igor Gunn, Petitioner v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, et al.

562 U.S. 1208, 131 S. Ct. 1067,

178 L. Ed. 2d 881,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1074.

January 26, 2011.

The petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the above-entitled case was dismissed today pursuant to Rule 46.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 399 Fed. Appx. 147.
No. 10-5963.

#### Domingo Bustos Anaya, Petitioner v. D. K. Sisto, Warden.

562 U.S. 1173, 131 S. Ct. 986,

178 L. Ed. 2d 815,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 25.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 969, 131 S. Ct. 476, 178 L. Ed. 2d 302, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8023.
**DAAN-13-03**

**Master Solicitation without Additional Clauses**

(March 2017)

The Purchase Order clauses/notes are applicable as indicated in the DLA Master Solicitation for EProcurement Automated Simplified Acquisitions (Part 13), per the Revision and Date in effect at the issuance of this award.  The DLA Master Solicitation may be found on the Web at http://www.dla.mil/HQ/Acquisition/Offers/eProcurement.aspx.  

(End of Notice)
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.39

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                    AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


      This Amendment No. 1 (this "Amendment") dated as of December 1, 2004, is
made by and between Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"), and Ronald P. Soltman (the "Executive").


      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive executed a certain Amended and
Restated Employment Agreement (the "EA") dated as of September 23, 2004, to
secure the services of the Executive as Executive Vice President, General
Counsel and Secretary; and

      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish the Executive's base salary
set forth in Section 6(a) of the EA to be increased to $509,850, effective as of
January 1, 2005.

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
herein contained, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that the EA is
amended as follows:

      1. Defined Terms. Except for those terms defined above, the definitions of
      capitalized terms used in this Amendment are as provided in the EA.

      2. Amendment to Section 6(a). Section 6(a) of the EA entitled "Base
      Salary" is hereby deleted and replaced with the following new Section
      6(a):

            "(a). Base Salary. The Executive's base salary hereunder, from
            September 23, 2004 to December 31, 2004, shall be $495,000 per year,
            payable semi-monthly. Effective January 1, 2005, the Executive's
            base salary hereunder shall be $509,850 per year, payable
            semi-monthly. The Board shall review such base salary at least
            annually and make such adjustments from time to time as it may deem
            advisable, but the base salary shall not at any time be reduced from
            the base salary in effect from time to time."

      3. Ratification. All other provisions of the EA remain unchanged and are
      hereby ratified by the Company and the Executive.

<PAGE>

                                      - 2 -

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed
by its duly authorized officer and the Executive has executed this Amendment,
each as of the day and year first set forth above.

                                        VANGUARD HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

                                        By: /s/ Charles N. Martin, Jr.
                                          -----------------------------------
                                                Charles N. Martin, Jr.
                                                Chairman of the Board and
                                                Chief Executive Officer

                                        EXECUTIVE:

                                        /s/ Ronald P. Soltman
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Ronald P. Soltman
# Attendee Report GoToWebinar Generated Dec 04, 2013 07:56 AM PST
Webinar Name Webinar ID Direct Heating Equipment & Pool Heaters Test Procedure Proposed Rulemaking: Public Meeting and Webinar 831434145

Actual Start Date/Time Actual Duration (minutes) Dec 04, 2013 09:00 AM EST 33 Total Attended 10 

# Session Details First Name Last Name CountryAddress City StateOrganization Zip Code Robert Glass US 12680 Lock 15 Road Tuscaloosa AL Raypak Inc. 35406 Craig Grider US 1809 10th Street Plano TX Intertek 75074 Jeff Kleiss US 5061 Republic Ave. Murfreesboro TN Lochinvar, LLC. 27129 mark krebs US 720 Olive St. Louis MOnot really 63101 Joanna Mauer US 529 14th St NW Suite 600 Washington DCAppliance Standards Awareness Project 20045 Karen Meyers US 5600 Old Greenwood Road Fort Smith AR Rheem/Raypak 72903 Andrea Papageorge US 10 Peachtree Place Atlanta GAAGL Resources 30309 Detlef Westphalen US 77 South Bedford Street Burlington MANavigant Consulting, Inc. 01803 Linfa Wilson US 120 Broadway NY NY NYS OAG 10271 Michael Woodford US 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite # 500Arlinglon VAAHRI 22201 

# General Information
No. 10-8231.

#### In re Oliver Macklin, Petitioner.

562 U.S. 1199, 131 S. Ct. 1060,

178 L. Ed. 2d 877,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 974.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
No. 10-10159.

#### Thelma Williams, Jr., Petitioner v. Lt. Johnson, et al.

565 U.S. 811, 132 S. Ct. 84,

181 L. Ed. 2d 15,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6684.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
No. 10-6919.

#### Markus A. Green, Petitioner v. Lisa Vu; and Markus A. Green, Petitioner v. William Grampre, et al.

562 U.S. 1113, 131 S. Ct. 828,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9765.

178 L. Ed. 2d 564,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 393 Fed. Appx. 225 (first judgment) and 388 Fed. Appx. 437 (second judgment).
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ethyl Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David A. Fiorenza, chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that: 

 

(1) the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

By: /s/ D. A. Fiorenza

David A. Fiorenza 

Vice President and Treasurer 

February 27, 2004
<PAGE>
                                      EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements 
on Form S-8 (File Nos. 2-76697, 33-1805, 33-22289, 33-50248, 33-74488 and 
333-62933) and the registration statements on Form S-3 (Files Nos. 2-96502 
and 33-14873 Amendment No. 1) of our reports, dated August 7, 1998, 
accompanying the consolidated financial statements and financial statement 
schedules of Quixote Corporation and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998 and 
1997, and for each of the years ended June 30, 1998, 1997 and 1996, which 
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quixote Corporation.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Chicago, Illinois
September 28, 1998
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Murray Nicol, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|/s/    MURRAY NICOL                                                     
|                                                                        
|Murray Nicol Vice President and Chief Financial Officer February 3,
2004
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2990 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit States to designate 

without any mileage limitations facilities that are located in rural areas 

as critical access hospitals, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2019 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit 

States to designate without any mileage limitations facilities that are located in rural areas as critical access 

hospitals, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Health Care 

5 Access Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2990 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICARE RURAL HOSPITAL FLEXIBILITY PRO2 GRAM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1820 of the Social Secu4 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i–4) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (c)(2)(B)(i)— 

6 (A) by striking ‘‘, and that—’’ and insert7 ing a semicolon; and 

8 (B) by striking subclauses (I) and (II); 

9 and 

10 (2) in subsection (h)(3), by inserting ‘‘made be11 fore the date of the enactment of the Rural Health 

12 Care Access Act of 2019’’ after ‘‘any redesignation’’. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

14 subsection (a)(1) shall apply with respect to any designa15 tion or redesignation made on or after the date of the en16 actment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS